From consumption to sustainability

A woman pedals a stationary bicycle to produce energy at an Earth Day event on the National Mall in Washington April 19. (AFP/Nicholas Kamm)

Viewpoint

Going green is not a fad. It’s necessary for the continued existence of life on this planet. Despite reputable scientific warnings of inevitable and irreversible damage, depletion persists. Perhaps we don’t know enough about what we can do, or we don’t care enough.

Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, sums up the next step: “America needs a bold plan that ignites our collective imagination, sparks innovation and creates economic and national security.”

In 2007, the International Panel for Climate Change, the world’s most authoritative body of climate scientists, released its Fourth Assessment Report suggesting that the tribulations of climate change are due to human activity and calling everyone into an awareness that we need to do more, particularly when those who struggle most because of climate change are those who have the smaller carbon footprint.

How can we as a nation afford to keep ourselves ignorant of the dangers for others that result from our lifestyle? Imagining all the things we would have to change in our daily lives alone makes us pine after old ways. But change is a part of life, perhaps its very essence. Remember life without cell phones or computers? It wasn’t so bad.

There’s further evidence for change’s necessity. We are in the middle of a deep recession and many fear what this will mean for our country.

But recession, I believe, can be an opportunity to become more devoted to sustainability than to consumption, and more concerned about what we can do for the Earth’s health. A nation realizing its interconnection with the rest of life on the planet would live out a more compassionate and just reality. If we willingly adopt such a lifestyle, not seeing it as a step down in economic status, then we make progress in creating a sustainable America.

Our call to action is to ensure the sustainability of our country while we still can. Part of this action would appeal to economic and national security and involve, for example, federal investment in financing start-up companies, revisiting the hodgepodge system of power transmission regulations, and creating inter-operable standards for smart energy grids. It might also involve offering scholarships to those who focus not only on the relation between ecology and economics but also attempt to create new sustainable technologies for the future.

Attention would have to be paid to the current “cap and trade” system that steadily reduces pollution by having its emitters trade among themselves. Perhaps we can turn to a “cap and dividend” system in which revenues generated from the auctioning of permits are given to households, not to industries.

You then gain if you conserve and lose if you guzzle energy. Revenue comes in the form of equally distributed dividends. This would potentially save the average family $1,160 for a 15 percent cut in emissions, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This system would make it possible to find ecological security in the middle of economic crisis.

The goal for creating a sustainable United States is centered on the common good and justice for humanity and the Earth itself. Concretely, however, the goal has to focus also on clean energy technology aimed at curbing climate change. Much of this would require that bold ethical imagination.

While taking the bus or local subway system to work instead of driving seems like a legitimate expectation, many people still live in urban sprawl where the walk to the nearest bus stop is over a mile away, and the number of transfers would be a nuisance. Though it may seem excessive to some to transfer to compact fluorescent bulbs to cut on energy usage, doing this can save a person over $120 a year.

Americans would be more likely to practice compassion for the common good if they knew what they would gain from it in the short run.

Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler’s recent book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness outlines three principles for bringing about a smaller national carbon footprint.

First, make costs visible. Let people know how much their use of energy is costing them. In trial programs featuring a tabletop ambient orb (a wireless ball that corresponds with the power grid) that glowed red in peak demand periods and green during low periods, homeowners reduced their consumption by 40 percent.

Second, enlist social norms such as neighborly competition by informing homeowners in their bill statements how their energy use compares to people in the neighborhood living in similarly sized houses.

Third, make change simple. Waking up two hours earlier every morning to trek out to the nearest bus stop? It’s not practical, but installing a switch in your house that cuts off electricity to all nonessential appliances as you leave the house every morning is easy.

In this recession, we find ourselves relinquishing our regular occasions of going out to eat. Many families and individuals have decided meals at home are the best option. The price of food, including fresh fruits, vegetables and meats, has skyrocketed. The amount of fuel burned in shipping the fruits and vegetables contributes to a larger carbon footprint and higher costs.

Meat is also regarded as unsustainable since high levels of methane released in factory farming are a leading cause of climate change. Our future in sustainable living would require small changes in each citizen’s shopping habits and dietary desires to promote sustainable agriculture and eating. For instance, by eliminating or limiting meats, processed and out-of-season foods in the daily menu, and adding local foods, we improve our health and save money. And it’s easy.

An extra incentive is that the foods sold at local farmers’ markets are raised organically, which not only combats climate change but also diminishes the degradation of life forms and improves the health of workers.

In the midst of recession, we find ourselves stripping away pieces of our lifestyle just to get by. For many this is an uncomfortable reality, but I have hope that what we learn in the art of simplicity in these months or years to come will transform American values of consumption into the values of a sustainable culture by collectively supporting each other in bold imaginings. By implication, this does not harm the Earth, does not pollute our rivers and ocean, and does not lead to the stripping of human dignity for people here or abroad.

Isn’t that what our Christian call demands?

Irene Quesnot works as a minister at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio.